"The government" doesn't want to control the internet. Certain elected officials would like to award certain telecommunications companies additional powers over consumer accessibility to the internet because certain telecommunications companies are in bed with certain elected officials.

In other words, business as usual in Washington.

And I love that "well, go to another broadband provider" comment. Yeah, because there's so much stiff competition in the US broadband market...

It appears, like most things, that the Tea Party is just looking for something to be mad about. As far as I understand it, however I could be wrong since it is a somewhat complicated issue, is that the government doesn't want control of the internet, they want to make sure no one can control the internet. As in, have a neutral internet, one where any service or site, including Drudge and Washington Times, and P2P and streaming video, have an equal opportunity to reach the consumer. Net neutrality is basically saying, we like the way the internet is now, and you are not allowed to change the way it works in the future, by offering tiered services or restrict content.

Take bluesnews.com for example, let's say your internet service provider decides they want to have a game news site, it's a growing industry and they want a part of it. All they have to do is flip a switch, bam, no more bluesnews if you are using their service, you must use their site. It is basically a fear that the internet will one day come to this, and I don't doubt it will, the internet is still very young, and companies are still trying to find out how to make the most money. It will crush the spirit that created the internet and turn into just one more commercialized piece of junk. To say we can trust the ISP to never go down that road is a naive way to go about it, we have already seen them place bandwidth caps and throttle certain services.

Tea Party activist should be more concerned about the Patriot Act, I am sure that probably includes the ability to do the things they fear to their propaganda machines.

My wife is a Tea Party activist and she says that the specific wording of the Net neutrality proposal is what has them worried. They fear that ambiguous and vague wording can allow for government infringement specifically on websites like The Drudge Report, the Washington Times or any of the conservative blogs that might take a stance against the current regime even if that isn't within the main intent of the legislation.

Just thought I'd shed some light. Personally, the whole issue still has me a bit confused, though I find myself leaning away from any kind of government control of the net, including FCC regulation.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

LittleMe wrote on Aug 13, 2010, 21:37:The recent Pentagon warning (reiterated by the Obama adminsitration) to wikileaks should be good enough warning - the federal government should have no regulatory authority over the Internet. It may sound populist and Utopian, but the notion of mission creep and federal regulation/control over the information we get on the Internet should be treated with far more skepticism than some romantic notion of 'neutral access' which the Internet was never intended to be neutral anyway.

wait... what? the pentagon warning had nothing to do with net neutrality. you need to get the right facts into your head. net neutrality is about nondiscrimination of data. everything treated with equal priority. and if you say the internet was never intended to be neutral anyway then whats the fuss about govt regulation? you prefer to let corporations whose decisions are closed to the public regulate your internet?

LittleMe wrote on Aug 13, 2010, 21:37:The recent Pentagon warning (reiterated by the Obama adminsitration) to wikileaks should be good enough warning - the federal government should have no regulatory authority over the Internet. It may sound populist and Utopian, but the notion of mission creep and federal regulation/control over the information we get on the Internet should be treated with far more skepticism than some romantic notion of 'neutral access' which the Internet was never intended to be neutral anyway.

Didn't the federal government give birth to the Internet in the first place? No authority can control it anyways, the internet is decentralized. If the US started getting pushy then the rest of the world could use different root name servers and peer without it. People have a lot more to fear from corporations exercising control over the internet, the government is fairly toothless.

The recent Pentagon warning (reiterated by the Obama adminsitration) to wikileaks should be good enough warning - the federal government should have no regulatory authority over the Internet. It may sound populist and Utopian, but the notion of mission creep and federal regulation/control over the information we get on the Internet should be treated with far more skepticism than some romantic notion of 'neutral access' which the Internet was never intended to be neutral anyway.